Chicken and egg debate unscrambled

[Asthaloth]

1) This article assumes evolution. I'd toss it out the window now if it wasn't on my computer.

This article assumes evolution because it is a scientific study and thusfore uses scientific theories. Please don't go there. >>

Wait? Evolution is totally 100% pure truer than the sky being blue scienice? Pluease. They have infected our public schools, please don't infect ppt was wel!

...

I think that in the spirit of not getting my butt banned, and being a better person that I should stay out of this one.

[Drake Redcrest]

1) This article assumes evolution. I'd toss it out the window now if it wasn't on my computer.

This article assumes evolution because it is a scientific study and thusfore uses scientific theories. Please don't go there. >>

Wait? Evolution is totally 100% pure truer than the sky being blue scienice? Pluease. They have infected our public schools, please don't infect ppt was wel!

Great googly moogly. I really do not understand your problem with science. You're religious? That's fantastic. Do not shove it at other people. Science has time and again proven things, and if you choose not to "believe in" science, that is your own personal choice. However, some of us DO "believe in" science, and you are being extremely disrespectful.

[sirclucky]

I don't want to get into a debate, this isn't the debate thread. My point was that no one has ever proven evolution. They have just taken evidence and made a hypothesis from it that explains origins. Thats fine, but you cannot say "The egg came first because evolution is true" without proving evolution. Just like I cannot say "The chicken came first because intellegent desgin is true" wtihout proving ID, nor can one say "1 = 2 because 1 = 0 and thus 0 + 1 = 1 + 1" without proving that 1 = 0.

[Rachel]

I don't want to get into a debate, this isn't the debate thread. My point was that no one has ever proven evolution. They have just taken evidence and made a hypothesis from it that explains origins. Thats fine, but you cannot say "The egg came first because evolution is true" without proving evolution. Just like I cannot say "The chicken came first because intellegent desgin is true" wtihout proving ID, nor can one say "1 = 2 because 1 = 0 and thus 0 + 1 = 1 + 1" without proving that 1 = 0.

1 - they have actually started proving evolution (some basic information about that here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5756/1878 )
2 - They arent saying "The egg came first because evolution is true" they are saying "assuming evolution is true, we think the egg came first"

And the chick in the picture on the article is so cute!!

[sirclucky]

Then never said they were "assuming" evolution, they took it as fact. And it isn't anywhere close to the stage of "fact" yet and thus cannot be done.

[Igg]

Then never said they were "assuming" evolution, they took it as fact. And it isn't anywhere close to the stage of "fact" yet and thus cannot be done.

Oh good lord.

By assuming evolution, they are taking it as fact for this scientific study. What part of this is hard for you to grasp exactly?

They did a study which said that assuming the theory of evolution is correct, then they believe that the egg came first. To do so they have to take the theory of evolution as fact.

Oh, and you totally contradicted yourself, because previously you said:

I totally disagree

1) This article assumes evolution. I'd toss it out the window now if it wasn't on my computer.

Now I'll move on before i hit something.

I've always swayed to the side of the egg for the reasons in that article ALTHOUGH it is still somewhat ambiguous....because although the chicken came out of the egg; it wasn't laid by a chicken...so is it really a true chicken egg? Or is a true chicken egg one laid by a chicken that a chicken hatches from? So I suppose it defends on how you categorise what a 'chicken egg' actually is. That's not set in stone, but to get back to what I said to sirclucky, you have to decide on what you believe it is and take that as fact or your study won't achieve anything.

I have a lovely cartoon about this from Cyanide and Happiness, but it's not appropriate.

[Matterbug]

Yeah, I have to agree with Igg.

It really does depend on whether you consider an egg laid by something other than a chicken but contains a chicken a chicken egg.

For the egg to have come first, it would have had to be laid by something that wasn't a chicken- since the chicken would not have been existant.

For the chicken to have come first, it would have been to come from some place other than an egg (or a chicken egg).

[o_0]

Of course the CHICKEN egg came first. It's common sense. o_o

BTW Clucky and everyone else, this isn't debate. Don't lock this thread. >.>

[Matterbug]

Of course the CHICKEN egg came first. It's common sense. o_o

BTW Clucky and everyone else, this isn't debate. Don't lock this thread. >.>

But then where did the chicken egg come from? What laid it, if not a chicken? And if something else laid it, is it still considered a chicken egg?

How confusing, lol.

[Igg]

Of course the CHICKEN egg came first. It's common sense. o_o

BTW Clucky and everyone else, this isn't debate. Don't lock this thread. >.>

But then where did the chicken egg come from? What laid it, if not a chicken? And if something else laid it, is it still considered a chicken egg?

How confusing, lol.

EXACTLY

And there's no set-in-stone definition.

*goes round in circles*

[Asthaloth]

Of course the CHICKEN egg came first. It's common sense. o_o

BTW Clucky and everyone else, this isn't debate. Don't lock this thread. >.>

But then where did the chicken egg come from? What laid it, if not a chicken? And if something else laid it, is it still considered a chicken egg?

How confusing, lol.

It doesn't matter what laid the egg, whatever laid it wasn't quite a Chicken.
Circular logic be damned, that's what's kept us back these last few decades.
A frikkin pre-chicken laid the egg, hows that.

[Anoohilator]

Imagine this - out of the whole human race there's only two people left - a male albino and female albino - if everything goes right they reproduce and start off an albino population. 1000 years later they ask - what came first the albino or the albino embryo.

The first domestic chicken was probably a mutant of some other bird but yeah! Mutants!

[o_0]

Yes, the egg was probably laid by something that was almost exactly a chicken, but not quite, and what hatched was the chicken we know and love today.

[Asthaloth]

Imagine this - out of the whole human race there's only two people left - a male albino and female albino - if everything goes right they reproduce and start off an albino population. 1000 years later they ask - what came first the albino or the albino embryo.

The first domestic chicken was probably a mutant of some other bird but yeah! Mutants!

Don't work quite like that, but you have the right idea.
(and the human race could not continue with just two surivors, something like 600 is needed, just to nitpick

[Matterbug]

So is it really considered a chicken egg if a "almost-chicken" laid it

Say the creature that was chicken like was called a plexur (no idea, lol).

Would it be a plexur egg (because that's what laid it) or a chicken egg (because that was what was inside it)?